The Diversity of the Rural
Development Priorities in
Europe
Tomas Ratinger and Stephan Hubertus
Gay
JRC-IPTS, European Commission (Seville, Spain)
Thanks to our current and
former colleagues of the
SAFH unit for their
contribution to our
presentation.
Authors’ opinions – not
necessarily reflect opinions of
the Commission
In the presentation we
are using results and
graphics of
•The IPTS/SAFH research
projects
• The research
conducted in the other
JRC institutes (PSC and
IES)
•DG-AGRI baseline
indicators
•Study on Rural
Employment (SERA)
•ESPON studies
•And many other studies
• Rural development research is a new
area of IPTS
• The research agenda defined with DG
Agri
• Focused on
– what kind of rural regions we have
– how they function (economically, socially)
– how to govern their sustainable
development
Structure
• Definition of RURAL – does it matter?
• Development and diversity of rural areas
• Diversity of issues and priorities
• (Future research)
• Objective: to discuss
– Common features
– Common issues
– Common perspectives
• for an EU level policy
Delimitation of rural areas
• At community level
– If population density is below a certain level
• (OECD 150 inhab/km2)
– Population size of the community is below a certain
threshold
– A combination of both
• (IE) ≤1500 inhab., ≤ 150 inhab./km2
– A combination of both + other criteria (sparsity,
integration with urban areas)
• (UK)
• “Aggregated” to higher level
– OECD – regions are said to be urban, significantly and
predominantly rural if the share of rural communes is
<15%, 15%-50%, >50%
England’s New Rural Definition
• Settlement morphology
[sites<10000 inhab.,
village, town, disperse]
• How sparsely the site is
populated
• Sparsity: average
densities of households
across areas of radius
10, 20 and 30 km is
below a certain levels
Source: DEFRA
Pros and cons of the OECD definition
• Pros: Objective and easy to apply
• Cons:
– Does not take into account spatial structure of
settlements
– Further information lost when up-scaled to upper
levels NUTS3 level
– Inappropriate classification, some “strange” results
– Does not take into account socio-economic
variables
– Obviously MS are not happy with it for a practical
rural policy
Source:
Drawbacks of the OECD definition
Classified as Urban
• Miss classification of
rural and urban
communes Clearly Rural
• Arable agriculture
allocated similarly to
rural and urban areas
Communes in
Extramadura
Inhab.
Area
km2
Density
Aldea de
Trujilo
439
0.35
1254
Valle de
Santa Anna
1 338
3.8
356
Zafra
14 266
63
228
Badajos
122 225
1534
80
Share of arable land on the total area
Large rural cities
Country
Rural
communes
Urban
communes
Commune
Population
Density
BE
25%
26%
Jerez
183 000
130
ES
25%
27%
IT
25%
33%
Uppsala
167 508
68
EU15
21%
29%
Albacete
130 023
105
Source: JRC/IPSC
A non-population density definition
• An attempt of DG-AGRI and
JRC/IPSC
• Area is Rural if more than X%
of the territory belongs to
Rural Land Cover Classes
(Forest, Agricultural and
Natural Land)
• Calculations based on
CORINE Land Cover
• Unexpected results
– Example if X=30%
Rural
Communes
Population
Roma
3 millions
Valencia
847 000
Szczecin
430 000
Source: JRC/IPSC
Problems with definitions
• It defines the subject/target/recipient of the policy
– Get information → a respective statistical unit
– Need for governing the policy → a respective
economically, socially environmentally autonomous unit
• Clearly –density is continuous thus rural-urban
continuum
– Where the threshold(s) come from?
– Can the borderline be independent of a problem and
thus of a policy?
• Thus, if problems vary across regions → the
definitions should vary accordingly?
The diversity of EU regions
• Using a neutral definition (such as OECD) rural
regions differ in
• Resource endowment
– Demographic structures, human capital
– Natural resources
– Natural values and environmental sensitivity
• Infrastructure/structure
– Social
– Business
• Drivers (social capital, external economy
performance)
• Performance
– Income, employment, growth
– Social inclusion of inhabitants, migration in and out
– Environmental pollution/conservation
Transport accessibility
Potential Accessibility
• Multimodal
• Based on calculation of the
generalised travel cost
• c
Average
accessibility
ij=-λ ln(
-1
∑m exp(- λcijm))
• Generalised cost cijm
between places i and j, m –
mode of travel
• Pictured as percentage of
the average accessibilty
Poor accessibility
ICT technologies - Broadband
Broadband penetration
9
8
7
growth rate %
• The spread of new ICT
technologies in rural areas
behind the urban zones
• 90% of urban population
have access to broad
band while it is only 60% in
rural regions.
• ICT are deemed to be
crucial for competitiveness
of RA
• NMS are behind in general,
the more in rural areas.
• More detailed information
needed
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
2003
Urban
2004
Sub-urban
Source: A-Bard
Rural
Performance
• Economic (e.g. GDP)
• Social (e.g. Employment)
• Environmental
• Institutional
Employment structure
Strong agricultural
base
Strong secondary
Back to
agriculture
Strong tertiary
Employment structure
Predominantly rural
Country
Primary
Secon
dary
Significantly rural
Tertiary
Primary
Secon
dary
Urban
Tertiary
Primary
Secon
dary
Tertiary
43%
41%
6% Rural-Urban
38%
56%
Structural
Difference
si
16%
pl
31%
26%
43%
25%
28%
47%
2%
31%
67%
11%
46%
44%
4%
43%
53%
0%
20%
80%
18%
32%
50%
9%
30%
61%
3%
49%
49%
0.5
cz
0.45
ee
0.4
0.35
24%
25%
51%
8%
25%
67%
2%
24%
73%
pt
0.3
23%
26%
51%
15%
33%
52%
5%
40%
55%
0.25
24%
24%
51%
21%
24%
55%
1%
27%
72%
0.2
9%
37%
54%
6%
40%
54%
1%
23%
76%
0.15
17%
29%
55%
8%
31%
61%
2%
28%
70%
8%
34%
59%
5%
38%
57%
1%
25%
74%
6%
32%
61%
4%
32%
63%
1%
28%
71%
26%de fr 65%
64%lv pl 4%
it 9%
nl be uk
es pt ie7%dk sk29%
ee at hu
gr cz 32%
64%
lv
hu
es
sk
de
it
Index
at
0.1
0.05
0
se
4%
uk
9%
26%
70%
DifRural_Urban
19%
72%
be
7%
19%
74%
2%
19%DifPR-urban
79%
DifSR-Urban
4%
24%
74%
5%
22%
73%
1%
22%
78%
3%
26%
71%
Source: Eurostat, Regio, Own Calculation
Performance
Economic performance
(GDP_PPS per capita)
• Rural regions weaker
• In RA social performance satisfactory under medium
economic performance
• Social performance is less dependent on economic in
RA.
Significantly rural
High
Predominantly rural
Urban
0
2
25
0
1
6
2
51
76
Medium
15
107
134
14
81
114
31
78
125
Poor
73
49
33
66
55
34
13
16
10
Poor
Medium High
Poor
Medium High
Poor Medium High
Social performance (Unemployment, reciprocal)
GDP clusters:
• Poor <75% of the EU avg
• High >125% of the EU avg
Social Performance:
• Poor Unemployment < 7%
• High Unemployment >13 %
Source: Eurostat, Regio, Own Calculation
Performance: GDP and transport
• Although the variance
is high the relationship
is obvious
• Location theory
– Garcia Pires (2006)
using Krugman
Geographical Model
on Spanish regional
data for 1981-1995
• Estimated the effect of
distance from a market
on wages
• Distance makes markets
imperfect
• Transport cost matter
→agglomerations
Source: ESPON
Economic problems of rural areas
• Loosing competitiveness of the
manufacturing sector (Freshwater, OECD,
2003, The future of Rural Policy)
• Insufficient concentration; transport costs
• Third type of industrial clusters – Social
networks (McCann, Sheppard, 2003) might
become increasingly important
– Conversion from primary and secondary sectors
to the tertiary
– ICT diffusion might play an important role
Problems and priorities – Case studies
• England, Wales, IE, Spain (Andalusia)
– Targeting rural communities,
– Social inclusion
– SME (non-agricultural)
• PL, LT (BG, RO)
– Overarching problem: subsistence farming and
job opportunities, need for economic
restructuring of large regions.
• CZ
– Revitalisation of villages (particularly in Sudeten)
– institutions of rural development
– Land abandonment
Problems and priorities
Economic
development
Social justice
Enhancing rural
environment
High income
Low share of
agriculture
Targeting areas of
greater need.
Tertiary sector
Access to services
[Migration in –
affordable
housing]
Countryside
stewardship should
be rewarded
High income
High share of
agriculture
Conversion from
agriculture into
tertiary sector
Access to services.
Education.
Conversion of
farmers into
country-side
stewards
Medium-low
income
Low share of
agriculture
From secondary
into tertiary sector.
Social networks.
Revitalisation of
villages.
Education. Access
to services.
Ensuring a proper
land
management.
Medium-low
income
High share of
agriculture
Economic
restructuring of
regions
Alternative job
opportunities
Moderate impact
of economic
restructuring
Economic development of RA
Economic performance
Income, competitiveness
High
Multifunctional
agriculture, new
industries and
services
Medium
Low
Productive
agriculture and
secondary
sector
Semi-subsistence
farming,
secondary
sector
Labour
Human capital
Technology
Organisation
Social capital for
subsistence
Social capital for
business
Factors
Economic development of RA
Economic performance
Income, competitiveness
High
Multifunctional
agriculture, new
industries and
services
Medium
Low
Productive
agriculture and
secondary
sector
Semi-subsistence
farming,
secondary
sector
Local market
National market
Vertical
integration
Supporting
industries
Markets, coordination
Global and local
market
Social capital for
business
Summary
• Rural areas in different stages of economic
development
– Often depending on the development of larger
regions
• The higher income other than economic
issues dominate
– Social inclusion
– Rural environment
• Increasing need for targeting needs at
lower level (community level)
– MS, regions conduct special surveys, provide
specific typologies
Research issues
• Need for more detailed typology of rural
areas
– Although it will likely not comprise all national,
regional typologies it should relate to them, a
bridge has to exist.
• Pan-European policy assessment has to
take into account lower levels (than NUTS2
and NUTS3)
• How to down-scale, upscale information
and methodologies
The Diversity of the Rural
Development Priorities in Europe
Thank you for your attention!
Use of transport
The same phenomenon referring to
two different rural types
A detailed analysis needed
Performance: GDP and Unemployment
GDP and Unemployment EU-15
600
300
500
250
% of the EU average
% of EU average
GDP and Unemployment
400
300
200
200
150
100
50
100
0
0
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
5
10
40
15
20
25
30
35
40
30
35
40
Unem ploym ent rate
Unem ploym ent rate
PR-EU15
PR-EU15
SR-EU15
Urban-EU15
PR-NMS
SR-NMS
SR-EU15
Urban-EU15
Urban-NMS
GDP and Unemployment NMS
300
mean GDP
EU15
PR
85
NMS
SR
91
Urban
120
PR
41
250
SR
55
Urban
82
% of EU average
GDP as %
of the EU
avg.
200
150
100
50
Std GDP
20
23
46
11
30
36
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
Unem ploym ent rate
PR-NMS
SR-NMS
Urban-NMS
Source: Eurostat, Regio, Own Calculation
Rural definitions
• Rural society (Encyclopaedia Britannica):
– a low ratio of inhabitants to open land
– the most important economic activities are the
production of foodstuffs, fibres, and raw
materials.
– difficult to pinpoint the boundaries of rural
places.
Performance
• Economic (GDP)
• Social (Employment)
• Environmental
• Institutional